Skylar Hillman – Houghton STAR

Ben Sasse, a conservative senator from Nebraska, has defended the traditional view of the supreme court during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings: the court is to be independent of the legislative process, free from political baggage, and the justices appointed should not be chosen solely by the current political persuasion of Congress. In defending the independence of the highest court, Sasse stated, “our solution is NOT to find judges who will be policymakers.” Sasse is correct in affirming this conventional role of the Supreme Court and Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination hearings are no different. Our Founding Fathers would disapprove of the Democratic Party’s unabashed determination to prevent Kavanaugh from being the ninth supreme court justice. In a word: un-American.

According to Stanford politics, the rising polarization in America has changed the way we judge, no pun intended, a nominee of the Supreme Court. Americans, and more specifically, our men and women in Congress, put their policy ambitions in the lap of the court. We determine the “qualifications” of the nominee based on their political ideology, hoping that they will pass policies that we want. This is contrary to what our founders desired. They desired an independent judiciary that would determine the constitutionality of laws that Congress legislate. The role of the Supreme Court is not to super-legislate or craft policy, but rather to evaluate whether or not a bill that is passed by Congress is constitutional, meaning that it doesn’t impinge on the natural rights of Americans. The responsibility of approving or rebuking policy proposals (bills) belongs entirely to Congress.

As Sasse argues, Kavanaugh’s policy opinions should but put in a box titled “irrelevant.” John Adams’ thinking resonates with this: “A question arises whether all the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, shall be left in this body? I think a people cannot be long free, nor ever happy, whose government is in one Assembly.” By choosing to consider Kavanaugh’s policy opinions Congress has done just that: putting the government in one Assembly, the Supreme Court.

Even worse, Democrats’ attempts to thwart Kavanaugh’s nomination have shifted into the arena of dirty politics. Recently, liberal Californian Senator Diane Feinstein said that she has proof that Kavanaugh tried to rape a young woman while in High School. Immoral sexual acts are unwelcomed and inhumane, but Feinstein’s allegations appear to be implausible. Feinstein refuses to release more evidence as she continues to argue for the postponement of Kavanaugh’s nomination. What makes Kavanaugh’s accuser’s case implausible is that she waited nearly four decades to mention the sexual misconduct. Why weren’t these allegations brought forth sooner? Why are they being discussed now right before the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh? Furthermore, why did the Democrats withhold this information from the Republicans until now? Feinstein admitted that she possessed this information in July.

Another objection swarming throughout the media is whether or not Kavanaugh will fight to eradicate Woe v. Wade or uphold legal precedent. Granted, Kavanaugh tends to the originalist interpretation of the Constitution and opposes abortion, but he has readily claimed he would follow court precedent. In answering questions from Senators Cory Brooke and Diane Feinstein, Kavanaugh swore to abide by legal precedent.

Additionally, there’s no doubt that Brett Kavanaugh is qualified for the Supreme Court. According to The Hill, “his experience and qualifications are very evident.” Kavanaugh has a twelve-year experience in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, writing over 300 legal opinions. He is a graduate of the reputable Yale Law School, worked as an associate counsel to the White House, and served as a law clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy.

President Donald Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Judicial branch should proceed without the political baggage. Mr. Kavanaugh is unquestionably qualified for the Supreme Court. Congress should approve of his nomination. Giving back the congressmen their responsibilities is part of Kavanaugh’s agenda, and that is what our Founding Fathers would want. Whether you are left-leaning or right-leaning is insignificant to the process of Kavanaugh’s appointment to the highest court of the land. Turning to the Supreme Court for politics is an abuse of the system. As Sasse proclaimed, “we need to bring back School House Rock.”

Skylar is a junior majoring in political science.

More and more frequently, we read about conservative speakers being banned from college campuses because of their views on certain hot-button issues. In late February of this year, Ben Shapiro was banned from speaking at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), which has been hailed as a respectable university. Shapiro’s event was cancelled, rescheduled, and eventually heavily protested by students who blocked entrance to those who wished to attend the event. UCLA thwarted Shapiro’s efforts to share his perspective, and this should not be so.

Universities are supposed to be guardians of knowledge, not adversaries of it. Though I support conservative principles, I would never encourage my college to ban liberal speakers from sharing their perspective. Prohibiting the free exchange of ideas only hinders the growth of more informed opinions. Many argue that some opinions are hateful and intolerant. At times, this is indeed true. However, there is an emerging trend of placing labels like “hate speech” or “intolerant” on things we don’t like. Our universities are supposed to be safe havens for knowledge, and hindering freedom of speech destroys the purpose of education. Political diversity is needed as much as ethnic, racial, and religious diversity.

Some may argue political diversity isn’t important. However, these assertions are far from the truth. Take for instance the controversy over the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The dilemma is whether congress should keep the ACA, or a similar legislation, or eradicate the legislation. If congress continues the ACA, those insured by the program will be keep their health care, but deductible prices will continue to climb for those previously insured. Republicans and Democrats differ hugely in their opinions on how to go about the ACA. The right hopes to alleviate prices, while the left wants to insure the most people. Political diversity cannot be ignored in regards to our health care predicament because both the economy and millions of lives are at risk.

By ignoring diversity of thought, America risks losing its footing as a world power. Banning speakers like Ben Shapiro from our universities only encourages students to close their minds to differing opinions and instead fosters an increase of ignorance. Recently, businessman Peter Schiff interviewed individuals protesting Wall Street. When he raised questions about the legitimacy of the majority opinion of the crowd, he was criticized for challenging their ideas and beliefs. Schiff was stunned at their unwillingness to show respect for his views. Needless to say, an intolerant group of protesters demonstrates the scary reality that our political and academic leaders are encouraging this developing trend.

The two parties in congress show that their conflicting views do not always align with reality. What happens when our beliefs don’t match up with reality? Do we continue to live in a bubble of lies that washes away at political diversity? Will we continue to allow our public schools to embrace one ideology? Will we continue to allow secularism to dominate the public sphere and religious dogma to hinder healthy discussion of political issues? As intellectuals, we cannot let this one-view dominance define academia and the political realm. The liberal coast needs to listen to the conservative heartland, and vice versa.

I’m afraid if we continue to retreat from challenging ideas, America will no longer be able to hold onto its intellectual leadership in the world. Scripture teaches us the importance of fellowship. 1 Peter 3:15 commands us, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” When someone asks you why you believe in what you do, be prepared to defend your position logically and respectfully. Political diversity should and must continue, if we want to remain a country of freedom and intellectual influence. Bill Clinton was right when he said, “great rewards will come to those who can live together, work together, and forge new ties that

bind together.” As pioneers of knowledge we cannot “forge new ties,” without appreciating other points of view.